|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 11:00 am Post subject: Real Scholarship |
 |
|
It's interesting to note that in some of the discussions involved in
this newsgroup the talk.origins type skeptics or atheists if you want
to call them that, take very interesting liberties in their
denunciation of those who they disagree with.
Sadly enough I have been bearing with this flawed mentality for much
too long.
True scholarship involves actually reading the material of the
opponent. I take reservations to those who claim to have knowledge
in regard to anything if they;
1. Rely on their friends or others for their opinions.
2. Rely on contradictory sources just because these sources are
supposed scholars or people of note.
3. Refuse to see a video or actually do field research (by visiting
the actual sites in question).
4. Appeal to non-relevant material, such as, "Oh, Ron Wyatt claimed
he saw Christ." Yes, non-relevant material certainly has no relevance
to metal detectors that beep.
I knew this person to which I offered video, to which this person
refused to see. And I'm sure this individual relies on friends for
opinions, or newspaper articles or whatever, but does not do the only
respectable thing that is acceptable as a scholar. The right thing is
to consult those who are actually involved. View the video and other
materials and do actual field work. ANYTHING else is cheap, lazy and
not scholarly. Heck, it's interesting to see Jim Lippard still
promoting the Standishes' book on Ron Wyatt inspite of the fact that
the book is loaded with errors.
JM |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
A.Carlson
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 11:00 am Post subject: Re: Real Scholarship |
|
|
On 27 May 2007 23:06:55 -0700, mccoy@sunset.net wrote:
| Quote: |
It's interesting to note that in some of the discussions involved in
this newsgroup the talk.origins type skeptics or atheists if you want
to call them that, take very interesting liberties in their
denunciation of those who they disagree with.
Sadly enough I have been bearing with this flawed mentality for much
too long.
|
Yes, and we have unfortunately had to bear with your flawed mentality
right along with you.
| Quote: |
True scholarship involves actually reading the material of the
opponent. I take reservations to those who claim to have knowledge
in regard to anything if they;
1. Rely on their friends or others for their opinions.
|
At least it beats relying on one's own vivid imagination like your pal
Ron 'The Con' did on so many occasions. All the more reason why sound
and sufficient evidence should be gathered and presented to a
respectable refereed journal so claims can undergo proper scrutiny,
something that your pal the nurse anesthetist avoided like the plague.
| Quote: |
2. Rely on contradictory sources just because these sources are
supposed scholars or people of note.
|
A person who insists unwaveringly that the Earth is flat is still
wrong. A good scientist will admit when he's wrong when the evidence
calls for it and there will always be issues open to a certain degree
of interpretation. This divergence of opinion is not a weakness and
some sort of proof that everyone must be wrong then.
| Quote: |
3. Refuse to see a video or actually do field research (by visiting
the actual sites in question).
|
The twisted lies so typical of a Creationist! The only one refusing
to do anything here regarding said video is you! You continue to
refuse to have it posted even as a number of people have made you
quite generous offers to help you do so.
And there has already been a great deal of research done regarding the
Durupinar site and the evidence as a whole points to it being nothing
more than a natural formation with the evidence presented in support
of it containing Noah's ark being either highly questionable or
insufficient.
| Quote: |
4. Appeal to non-relevant material, such as, "Oh, Ron Wyatt claimed
he saw Christ." Yes, non-relevant material certainly has no relevance
to metal detectors that beep.
|
Metal detectors that beep whenever they come across highly mineralized
soil is in no way shape or form sufficient proof of rivets, bolts, or
any other form of 'fossilized metal'.
Not only did Ron 'The Con' Wyatt claim he saw Christ in the flesh, he
made it sound like it was a personal visit. He also claimed that he
had a genuine sample of Christ's blood but refused to name the
independent Israeli lab he alleged conducted tests on it, although he
did provide some completely bogus analysis that had something to do
with somatids. He also claimed that he found almost every major
religious artifact conceivable and yet provided no credible evidence
to prove it. When some nutjob comes along making such outlandish
claims it is indeed relevant to his credibility, especially if the
rest of the evidence he provides is of a highly imaginative and/or
subjective nature.
| Quote: |
I knew this person to which I offered video, to which this person
refused to see. And I'm sure this individual relies on friends for
opinions, or newspaper articles or whatever, but does not do the only
respectable thing that is acceptable as a scholar.
|
And what does that have to do with us? You are such a god-damned
hypocrite! Several people here have made very generous offers to you
regarding posting said video. It has been you all along who has
repeatedly refused to do so.
| Quote: |
The right thing is to consult those who are actually involved.
|
Nope! The right thing would have been for those who were actually
involved to provide their work to qualified individuals so that it can
be properly scrutinized. What little Wyatt provided in the form of
'evidence' fails miserably under scrutiny for a number of reasons.
| Quote: |
View the video and other
materials and do actual field work.
|
You mean like Dr. Baumgardner, Thomas Fenner, Dr. Morris et al who
have not only done so but have come to a completely different
conclusion than yours based on far more evidence than you are willing
to honestly consider?
| Quote: |
ANYTHING else is cheap, lazy and
not scholarly. Heck, it's interesting to see Jim Lippard still
promoting the Standishes' book on Ron Wyatt inspite of the fact that
the book is loaded with errors.
|
And it's quite telling to see that to this day you still believe in
dowsing and religious fairytales that have long ago been debunked in a
number of ways. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
coaster
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 11:00 am Post subject: Re: Real Scholarship |
|
|
On May 28, 1:06 am, m...@sunset.net wrote:
| Quote: |
It's interesting to note that in some of the discussions involved in
this newsgroup the talk.origins type skeptics or atheists if you want
to call them that, take very interesting liberties in their
denunciation of those who they disagree with.
Sadly enough I have been bearing with this flawed mentality for much
too long.
True scholarship involves actually reading the material of the
opponent. I take reservations to those who claim to have knowledge
in regard to anything if they;
1. Rely on their friends or others for their opinions.
|
You've never read a book that influenced your opinion?
| Quote: |
2. Rely on contradictory sources just because these sources are
supposed scholars or people of note.
|
What do the experts know anyway, right?
| Quote: |
3. Refuse to see a video or actually do field research (by visiting
the actual sites in question).
|
And you'll pay for the ticket?
| Quote: |
4. Appeal to non-relevant material, such as, "Oh, Ron Wyatt claimed
he saw Christ." Yes, non-relevant material certainly has no relevance
to metal detectors that beep.
|
But a video will suffice?
| Quote: |
I knew this person to which I offered video, to which this person
refused to see. And I'm sure this individual relies on friends for
opinions, or newspaper articles or whatever, but does not do the only
respectable thing that is acceptable as a scholar. The right thing is
to consult those who are actually involved. View the video and other
materials and do actual field work. ANYTHING else is cheap, lazy and
not scholarly. Heck, it's interesting to see Jim Lippard still
promoting the Standishes' book on Ron Wyatt inspite of the fact that
the book is loaded with errors.
JM
|
Jim Lippard is a scholar? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ye Old One
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 11:01 am Post subject: Re: Real Scholarship |
|
|
On 27 May 2007 23:06:55 -0700, mccoy@sunset.net enriched this group
when s/he wrote:
| Quote: |
It's interesting to note that in some of the discussions involved in
this newsgroup the talk.origins type skeptics or atheists if you want
to call them that, take very interesting liberties in their
denunciation of those who they disagree with.
|
No liberties at all McClueless, we just point out your blatant lies
and errors, together with your poor education.
| Quote: |
Sadly enough I have been bearing with this flawed mentality for much
too long.
|
Then it is about time your cured your flawed mentality.
| Quote: |
True scholarship involves actually reading the material of the
opponent.
|
Yes. When are you going to start?
| Quote: |
I take reservations to those who claim to have knowledge
in regard to anything if they;
1. Rely on their friends or others for their opinions.
|
Like you rely on Ron 'The Con' Wyatt?
| Quote: |
2. Rely on contradictory sources just because these sources are
supposed scholars or people of note.
|
Relying on experts is hardly a fault McClueless. Relying on Ron 'The
Con' Wyatt as you so often do - well that is ridiculous.
| Quote: |
3. Refuse to see a video or actually do field research (by visiting
the actual sites in question).
4. Appeal to non-relevant material, such as, "Oh, Ron Wyatt claimed
he saw Christ."
|
Well, it all goes to his credibility (or rather lack thereof) as a
witness.
| Quote: |
Yes, non-relevant material certainly has no relevance
to metal detectors that beep.
|
Which they would not do on the site of a bronze age boat. You have yet
to address that McClueless - yet another thing you run and hide from.
| Quote: |
I knew this person to which I offered video, to which this person
refused to see. And I'm sure this individual relies on friends for
opinions, or newspaper articles or whatever, but does not do the only
respectable thing that is acceptable as a scholar. The right thing is
to consult those who are actually involved.
|
Not when the people involved are know liars like you or Ron 'The Con'
Wyatt.
Can't. You are the only one who claims it exists. You will not allow
it to be seen. Therefore it can be ignored, and indeed is.
| Quote: |
and other
materials and do actual field work. ANYTHING else is cheap, lazy and
not scholarly. Heck, it's interesting to see Jim Lippard still
promoting the Standishes' book on Ron Wyatt inspite of the fact that
the book is loaded with errors.
|
Care to point out any error. You tried once before I seem to recall -
and failed.
Bob. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ye Old One
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 11:01 am Post subject: Re: Re: Real Scholarship |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 14:15:14 -0700, mccoy@sunset.net enriched this
group when s/he wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 12, 1:39 pm, Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl> wrote:
On 12 Jun, 19:44, m...@sunset.net wrote:
On Jun 11, 4:51 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 13:46:49 -0700, m...@sunset.netenriched this
group when s/he wrote:
On Jun 11, 12:37 pm, DJT <mousede...@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Jun 11, 3:05 pm, m...@sunset.netwrote:
snipping
In all the furore regarding that video and the claims of Ron Wyatt, I
think you are missing one salient point.
About two centuries ago, the founders of the science of Geology came,
regretfully, to the conclusion that nowhere on or under the Earth was
there evidence of a worldwide flood.
Interestingly enough you are only telling a small part of the story.
Here is the part you didn't write about:
Long before these aforesaid geologists arrived on the scene, these
individuals you claim to be Christians, were the theories of
evolution brewing.
|
How come you ALWAYS manage to get things wrong McClueless, you do it
without fail every time.
| Quote: |
And naturally these ideas came from the Greeks.
|
Did it McClueless?
| Quote: |
And interestingly enough early Greek religion appears to be partly
opposed to the Biblical religion, and on the Parthenon the story of
Eve in the Garden appears to be told, only reframed in another
language, and that of humanism. The religion of the snake. That the
snake was good force. And so we see the snake as a positive thing in
many cultrues of the world. But coincidentally, it appears that out
of Greece came evolution. Anaximander, Aristotle, etc. believed in
evolution. As the result of the study of the classics, evolution was
brought back to life. Many naturalists at that time were trying to
prove evolution and were looking for facts to back their ideas. Some
of these naturalists, for example Haeckel, wanted people to believe in
evolution so much that they forged information.
|
Haeckel forged nothing.
| Quote: |
Haeckel made up the
monera,
|
Wrong again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monera
| Quote: |
and admitted to tampering with drawings. First denying then
admitting, and finally dropping out altogether to form his own
religious view of monism. A force that influenced Hitler.
|
Did it McClueless?
| Quote: |
So, your view that some objective geologists came on the scene, out of
the blue and strictly out of evidence came to the conclusion that
evolution is true, is false.
|
No McClueless, as usual it is you that is wrong.
| Quote: |
There was ALREADY in existence the view
of evolution. The fact be told
|
But never, ever, by you.
| Quote: |
that geology wasn't very well
understood back then and the principle of UNIFORMITARIANISM held
sway.
|
It still does McClueless, "The present is the key to the past."
| Quote: |
Geologists back then held to the principle of uniformitarianism,
perhaps a reaction to catastrophism. In this view geologists would
try to calculate the age of the earth per footage of earth and rock!
|
You do come out with some VERY silly ideas McClueless, but that is a
real humdinger.
| Quote: |
No respectable geologists does this today. And of course the geologic
column was developed at this time and passed down and taught in every
university as if fact, based on these old dogmas. Since those days
not much has changed.
Many geologists in those days wouldn't recognize catastrophic causes
for much of anything.
|
Do try to learn some geology McClueless, it could make you less of a
fool.
| Quote: |
JM
[excessive sig removed and reported as abuse]. |
--
Bob. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Wombat
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 11:01 am Post subject: Re: Real Scholarship |
|
|
On 12 Jun, 23:15, m...@sunset.net wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 12, 1:39 pm, Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl> wrote:
|
<Huge snip>
| Quote: |
"Historical Note on Iron Smelting. The archaeologists' division of
the history or racial development into the Stone, bronze, and the iron
Ages, based upon objects found in tumuli, burial places, etc., would
on the face of it indicate the prior discovery of copper metallurgy
over iron, and it is generally so maintained by those scientists. The
metallurgists have not hisitated to protest that while this
distinction of "Ages" may serve the archaeologists, and no doubt
represents the sequence in which the metal objects are found, yet it
by no means follows that this was the order of their discovery or use,
but that iron by its rapidity of oxidation has simply not been
preserved. The arguments which may be advanced from our side are in
the main these. iron ore is of more frequent occurence than copper
ores, and the necessary reduction of copper oxides (as most surface
ores must have been) to fluid metal requires a temperature very much
higher than does the reduction of iron oxides to wrought-iron blooms,
which do not necessitate fusion. The comparatively greater simplicity
of iron metallurgy under primitive conditions is well exemplified by
the hill trives of Northern Nigeria, where in village forges the
negroes reduce iron sufficient for their needs, from hematite. Copper
alone would not be a very serviceable metal to primitive man, and he
early made the advance to bronze; this latter metal requires three
metallurgical operations, and presents immeasurably greater
difficulties than iron. "
Georgius Agricola in his DE RE METALLICA
Georgius Agricola was around in the 16th century. I doubt he used the
terminology in the screed above.
Try again.
|
No answer to this example of sloppy scholarship, I see.
Wombat
| Quote: |
None of this has been documented
Of course they have.
Sure, and I'll go to the remote African tribes and ask access to
their libraries.
What has been documented is the spread of iron smelting technology
developed after the bronze age.
You mean the widespread use of iron.
No, he was correct in what he said.
But sure, there are no libraries
in African tribe villages.
Though many have the internet.
You've missed the point. No African has documented his ancient use of
iron, and there are no libraries found in secret locations in Africa.
Still, I have this problem with you and your logic fallacies. When
you reject the fallacy of guilt by association you will have made
progress. By the way, that seems to be your major argument. Namely,
the reason why there is no pattern of iron is because Ron Wyatt found
it. And my argument against that is that David Fasold's video, note
"David FASOLD's video" shows Dr. Baumgardner finding a pattern of
iron, not WYATT. Wyatt does produce a video showing Jim Irwin, the
astronaut, admitting that there is a pattern of iron. So the pattern
is there. But your argument is that since Fasold had a dowsing rod
that magically changes the entire scenario, including blotting out the
metal detector scans and the radar scans. You would think that if
someone did a video, say that PBS did one on the economy of France, by
including footage of a dowsing rod all the other footage with
interviews with the Primeminister and so fourth would magically
disapear.
JM
In all the furore regarding that video and the claims of Ron Wyatt, I
think you are missing one salient point.
About two centuries ago, the founders of the science of Geology came,
regretfully, to the conclusion that nowhere on or under the Earth was
there evidence of a worldwide flood.
Interestingly enough you are only telling a small part of the story.
Here is the part you didn't write about:
Long before these aforesaid geologists arrived on the scene, these
individuals you claim to be Christians,
|
Some of them were Anglican vicars. Are they not Christians in McCoy
world.
| Quote: |
were the theories of
evolution brewing. And naturally these ideas came from the Greeks.
And interestingly enough early Greek religion appears to be partly
opposed to the Biblical religion, and on the Parthenon the story of
Eve in the Garden appears to be told, only reframed in another
language, and that of humanism.
|
I've seen the Parthenon friezes in London. Please say which friezes I
should have seen.
| Quote: |
The religion of the snake. That the
snake was good force. And so we see the snake as a positive thing in
many cultrues of the world. But coincidentally, it appears that out
of Greece came evolution. Anaximander, Aristotle, etc. believed in
evolution. As the result of the study of the classics, evolution was
brought back to life. Many naturalists at that time were trying to
prove evolution and were looking for facts to back their ideas. Some
of these naturalists, for example Haeckel, wanted people to believe in
evolution so much that they forged information. Haeckel made up the
monera, and admitted to tampering with drawings. First denying then
admitting, and finally dropping out altogether to form his own
religious view of monism. A force that influenced Hitler.
So, your view that some objective geologists came on the scene, out of
the blue and strictly out of evidence came to the conclusion that
evolution is true, is false.
|
WRONG. They were the founders of Geology, not evolution They were
forced to decide by the EVIDENCE that the Earth is VERY OLD and there
had not been a worldwide flood, EVER. They had integrity, something
you seem to think does not apply to you.
Wombat
| Quote: |
There was ALREADY in existence the view
of evolution. The fact be told that geology wasn't very well
understood back then and the principle of UNIFORMITARIANISM held
sway.
Geologists back then held to the principle of uniformitarianism,
perhaps a reaction to catastrophism. In this view geologists would
try to calculate the age of the earth per footage of earth and rock!
No respectable geologists does this today. And of course the geologic
column was developed at this time and passed down and taught in every
university as if fact, based on these old dogmas. Since those days
not much has changed.
|
Read what you wrote above. There is a glaring contradiction there.
How comes you are correct, who doesn't know what a parsec is, and all
the generations of geologists since the 1830s haven't the nous to see
what they have been told does not correspond to what they see in the
earth.
Wombat
| Quote: |
Many geologists in those days wouldn't recognize catastrophic causes
for much of anything.
|
Earth to McCoy, Earth to McCoy, Where is YOUR evidence FOR the
worldwide flood. Modern geologists do not believe in your strawman
version of uniformitarianism yet they agree that Sedgewick et al. had
it about right. Long ago, it was recognised that some gelogical
features have a catastropic origin eg. Washington Scablands and some a
more uniformitarian origin eg. angular unconformities and the
chalklands of Western Europe which crop out at the Cliffs of Dover, as
well as the North and South Downs etc.
Wombat
| Quote: |
JM
Being devout and honourable> Christians they accepted therefore that the Bible was never meant to
be a science book.
That, John, is your first hurdle as no worldwide flood = no Noah's
Ark. You need to supply incontrovertible evidence that a worldwide
flood happened in the last six thousand years before you can ever hope
to convince anyone that the structure in Turkey is Noah's Ark.
If there was no worldwide flood, then there cannot have been a 'Noah's
Ark', so whatever the structure in Turkey is, it could not, by
definition, be the vessel mentioned in Genesis.
Wombat
big snip |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
